A Binary Approach to Define and Classify Final

Ecosystem Services

DIXON H. LANDERS 1 & AMANDA M. NAHLIK 1

,

1 US EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CORVALLIS, OREGON

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

Identify, measure, and quantify

ecosystem services in a scientific,

rigorous, and systematic way that

can be aggregated to regional and

national scales.

2

ecosystem services

GOAL

Where it all started…

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment awakened the vision of using ecosystem services as a tool.

3

“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” (MEA 2005)

What are ecosystem services?

4

Ecosystem services are everything!

5

Just because scientists measure it does not mean it is an ecosystem service!

What is the problem?

• Many definitions and inconsistent lists of ecosystem services

• Miscommunication and discord among disciplines

• Disconnect between environment and human well-being

• Lack of consistency, rigor and a systematic approach; need typology and classification for “framework”

6

What do people care about?

soil microbes clean water fauna habitat

7

Connecting ecosystem services to benefits requires

interdisciplinary approaches.

The services quantified by ecologists are not

necessarily those directly valued by the public.

How do we connect

ecosystem services to human

well-being?

8

Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)

• A focused definition

– Measures of biophysical features

– Relates clearly to human beneficiaries

– Centers on the ecosystems

– Counts only direct interactions

9

“components of nature, directly

enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield

human well-being” (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)

How do you identify FEGS?

10

“components of nature, directly

enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield

human well-being” (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)

Environmental Class Beneficiary + FEGS

• Three Key Steps:

1. Clearly define the Environmental Class boundary

2. Identify Categories of Beneficiaries

3. For any Beneficiary and Environmental Class, hypothesize FEGS received

ES versus FEGS

• Two terms

– Ecosystem services

– Final Ecosystem Goods and Services

11

Ecosystem services Final Ecosystem Goods and Services

ES FEGS

Broadly defined and used Very specific definition

All-inclusive Discrete and specific

Mixes processes, functions, and goods Includes only goods and services

Duplicative Minimally duplicative

Identify, measure, and quantify

FEGS in a scientific, rigorous, and

systematic way that can be

aggregated to regional and

national scales.

12

GOAL

Environmental Classes

• Based on Anderson land use/land cover classes

• Modified so Environmental Class or Sub-Class boundaries can be identified and mapped using satellite

13

14

11. River and

Streams

12. Wetlands

13. Lakes and

Ponds

14. Near Coastal

Marine

15. Open Oceans

and Seas

16. Groundwater

21. Forests

22. Agro-

ecosystems

23. Created

Greenspace

24. Grasslands

23. Scrubland/

shrubland

24. Barren

25. Tundra

26. Ice & Snow

31. Atmosphere

1 Aquatic 2 Terrestrial 3 Atmospheric

XX Environmental Sub-Classes

X Environmental Classes

Beneficiaries

15

An individual is comprised of

many beneficiaries.

“the interests of an individual (i.e., person, group, and/or firm) that drive active or passive consumption and/or appreciation

of ecosystem services resulting in an impact (positive or negative) on their welfare” (Nahlik et al. 2012)

Beneficiaries

16

• 10 Beneficiary Categories

– Agricultural

– Commercial/Industrial

– Government, Municipal, and Residential

– Commercial/Military Transportation

– Subsistence

– Recreational

– Inspirational

– Learning

– Non-Use

– Humanity

• 39 Beneficiary Sub-Categories

17

How do you identify FEGS?

18

Environmental

Class Beneficiary FEGS

forest Subsistence harvester wood

fish Recreational angler

stream

Our Classification Scheme

19

Classifying FEGS

• Used distinct set of principles and rules

• Identified 351 sets of FEGS

– Each associated with a Beneficiary Sub-Category and Environmental Sub-Class

• Each set of FEGS can be identified by a unique, binomial, identification number

20

Products

21

• 2013 EPA Report

– Includes FEGS tables and instructions

– External review completed

– Final revisions underway

• Interactive database

– EPA Website

– Ability to create and download FEGS tables

– Can generate custom checklists of potential FEGS

– Forum and comments

– Currently in progress

– Begin to populate with metrics and indicators

Potential Uses

22

• Standard checklists of Potential FEGS generated by either selecting Beneficiaries or Environmental Classes

• Use as a standard framework operational at multiple spatial scales

• Common list of metrics and indicators associated with specific FEGS: facilitates site to program comparisons

• A standard basis for valuation linked to specific beneficiaries/FEGS

• A basis for developing a Beneficiary Typology linked to FEGS

23

“We are drowning in information while

starving for wisdom. The world will

henceforth be run by synthesizers,

people able to put together the right

information at the right time, think

critically about it, and make important

choices wisely.”

E.O. Wilson, 1998

Consilience